Comments on: Qaradawi now – who next?

By: just me asking

just me asking — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:18:35 +0000

salam…
there’s no update for a long time.
what happen?
have the struggles stop?

By: Bravvooo!

Bravvooo! — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:49:54 +0000

Up to the point where you come to a crossroads where the two camps are at striking odds and you have to take a pragmatic decision which to accept and which to reject.

With respect to same sex relationships, the reasons for justifying their prohibition are simply incoherent.

By: Rasheed Eldin

Rasheed Eldin — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:13:46 +0000

Saying that one thing is completely true does not imply that everything else is completely false.

By: Bravvooo!

Bravvooo! — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:57:36 +0000

Your scriptures are very true indeed, just a bit out of touch with the world we live in. But of course everything is false except the out-of-touch scriptures.

We all have our debate deal-breakers. You don’t want to go there.

By: wiki

wiki — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:46:48 +0000

as long as u read it O_o

so? … what are ur thought on it?

By: wiki

wiki — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:31:04 +0000

take a look at this

[RASHEED says: Wiki, there's no problem with pasting links in general, but if you feel there's some powerful point worth reiterating from that link, you can either put it in your own words or perhaps paste it if not too long. If you just wanted to draw my attention to it, then you can be sure I read it long ago. ]

By: Rasheed Eldin

Rasheed Eldin — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:19:38 +0000

You seem unable to grasp the basic point of principle on which we are disagreeing. I've pointed out that citing "basic rights" will not be of much use without some agreement on how such rights would be defined (conceptually - e.g. are these rights given/granted, if so by whom?) and detailed (in a list that would presumably stand for all time, if they are actually basic). You've made a good step by clarifying that you take the UN Declaration as your basis. But then are you expecting we will start debating it as though it were scripture? So what if one of the articles can be interpreted this way or that? The Declaration was not sent from heaven, rather it is an (admirable) human attempt to say what we agree on. But even if everyone agreed on falsehood, that wouldn't change it to truth.

By: Bravvooo!

Bravvooo! — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:27:18 +0000

You are trying to paint my views as extravagant or superfluous but look again at the UN declaratio of Human rights article 16. Does it differentiate between marriage with same gender or opposite gender?

Oh but why should I hold you accountable to a declaration that the majority of us simple minded mammals have committed to when you are satisfied you have the monopoly on divine truth?

OF COURSE the right to medication should be instantly and effortlessly recongnised as the same calibre as the right to cohabitation and starting a family (with or without children). What on Earth are you talking about? What worries me is that you come across as fairly intelligent so all I detect from your resistance to engage in rational debate is intentional obscurantism.

I can still remember the Sheikh’s explosive rants on Aljazeera on matters of walaa and baraa…now we have to beg the British Home Office to grant him rights to entry for medical help. How Bizarre!

By: Rasheed Eldin

Rasheed Eldin — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:45:27 +0000

First of all Bravo, our response is not a retreat, but simply a fact that must be so underlined in order to maintain sanity. You talk about “rational debate”, but would the nature of such a debate be the same while taking into account divine revelation, or ignoring it? No, so we make clear that if there are discussions to be had with non-believers, those discussions will not be on basic moral questions such as whether or not homosexuality is acceptable: because this can always be brought back to another question, i.e. “acceptable to whom?”.

I’ve pointed out to you previously the difficulty in trying to look at everything in terms of “basic human rights”. Mujahid didn’t use such a term above, but you’ve considered medical treatment in the UK such a basic right, alongside a man’s right to have sex with another man. In short, I have little interest in this fanciful process, where you drop anything you like into your basic-human-rights shopping cart.

By: Bravvooo!

Bravvooo! — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:25:57 +0000

I’ve just noticed that some of these descriptions are true even of some reverred religious texts!

How come we flag up such issues for rational debate but as soon as a rational excuse is demanded for the website’s anti-gay sex views then they queickly retreat behind “we are only concerned with Islam’s views on the matter”?

Is this not dishonesty? The sheikh has a granted right for medical treatment, gay John-doe has a right to cohabitate with any adult… all basic human rights. What is so incovenient about adopting a consistent and rational frame of mind when dealing with each?

What gives the sheikh (or this website) the freedom to recommend gays give up their right for sexual relationships (notice the word “gays”) and recommend that the rights fo their shcolars on medical treatment are upheld?

Double standards.